A critic on Ethical Relativism

In Kopelman’s argument against ethical relativism she describes the multiple forms of relativism. Descriptive relativism is defined as viewing people from opposite cultures as different in how they act and in societal norms however they are more concerned with the descriptions of how or in what way we are different and will not include how we ought to be. Cultural relativism is much more committed to the idea that because society dictates what is right and what is wrong that there is no way to evaluate moral claims from other cultures than your own and to do so would be without any true moral authority. The author states however, “Anthropologists by their own admission, however do not use the term cultural or ethical relativism consistently. Often relativism is presented as the only alternative to clearly implausible views such as absolutism or cultural imperialism; sometimes it is used to stress the obvious points that different rankings and interpretations of moral values or rules by different groups may be justifiable, or employed to highlight the indisputable influence of culture on moral development, reasons, norms and decisions.”  A view which to many may seem imperialistic however to what extent we ought to do is dependable on the situation in question.  Further more Kopelman discusses ways in which cross-culture moral judgments can be ascertained.  She explains that although cultures may be different that they often share many similarities especially in circumstances where both cultures share methods of scientific discovery. Kopelman explains that we share evaluative methods in the research of “science, engineering and medicine and how to translate, debate, deliberate, criticize, negotiate and use technology.”  Because of this it becomes possible to make cross-cultural judgements if both cultures share the mentioned. I would agree with Kopelman’s argument that these methods of cross-cultural moral judgements are not only possible but in fact morally required to be made if it furthers the understanding, support, and elimination of harmful acts committed by a ignorant or uneducated society.  The view that good and bad are not objective but rather relative is in my opinion a lazy conclusions which allows for injustice to be committed without judgment or urge for change. The scientific data presented by Kopelman in the argument of whether cross-cultural moral judgement for female genital mutilation should be expressed in this circumstance is quite clear. The practice is immoral, dangerous, cruel, un-required by any religious text and is an appalling example of the power men still hold over the opposite gender in some parts of the world. I would consider this practice to be torture by mutation and should ripped out from all societies root and stem.